Yes the infant does become the patient. That is something that even the pro abortionists can not question. They should be set up in the clinic to receive life and not end it. This is something that they want to change. Sick bastards....

You've got your extremists on just about every issue. I would bet a very small % of those who are pro-choice are okay with post birth abortions. I don't think too many are even okay with late-term abortions.

On the other hand, I'm sure you've got some whackos on the other extreme that wouldn't let a 10 year-old who was raped by a family member terminate the pregnancy even it was likely to kill her.

It is hard to believe that it is legal to murder a baby- living, breathing on the delivery table- because it is in an abortion clinic,
or, that abortion clinics are so unregulated that Dr. Gosnell preformed them for decades without oversight.

John, I think that once the babies are born alive, they are no longer fetuses. they are the patient and deserve medical attention.

We pay one third of the cost of planned parenthood and they endorse killing the aborted babies if the babies are born alive.

"It is hard to believe that it is legal to murder a baby- living, breathing on the delivery table- because it is in an abortion clinic,
or, that abortion clinics are so unregulated that Dr. Gosnell preformed them for decades without oversight."

Terry, an abortion isn't a birth and the aborted fetus is not being born. Abortions are not morally good solutions to any problem. I can understand people who would say that abortion makes them sick. Or that perhaps late term abortions make them sick. But the idea that not giving life support to a fetus that was intended for termination is not rational.

Fetuses are intended to develop to maturity in the womb. An abortion is not a medically necessary procedure for saving a fetus. It is a legal procedure to terminate a pregnancy. It is illogical to advocate a system that extracts fetuses intended for termination and then put them on advanced life support and incubate them to maturity regardless of the outcome, not to mention expense. I see no rational distinction that would claim it is OK to terminate the fetus in the womb, but once it's out it must be saved. That distinction should be based on other factors. Factors such as gestation period and other medically necessary factors.

There are plenty of children in the world that would have improved quality of life with access to expensive advanced medical procedures. The last thing we want to do is intentionally remove premature fetuses from the womb and then expend those resources to save them with the knowledge that they may be handicapped, heath issues, and possibly requiring lifetime continued support in a system that doesn't provide it.

The key point is that those who are likely against abortion and in the absence of making headway toward their goals are trying to convert it to a system that extracts premature fetuses from the womb and puts them on advanced life support. Not a good idea IMO.

Barry, I've never envisioned you as much of a critical thinker. The law states that the fetus, baby, infant, whatever you want to call it can be terminated. If you are against that law then work to change it. What I disagree with is extracting the "subject" and then putting it on advanced life support and incubating it to produce a potentially damaged/disabled unwanted child.

In the even that should occur, the child was disabled intentionally. It's diminished quality of life was a legislated and intentional act. I disagree with the idea that half witted or ill intended "do-gooders" want to incubate a crop of defective children so they can hold them up later and say.... "See, this is what abortion does". Not that is not what abortion does.

This thread isn't a debate over whether abortion should be allowed or not. It's a debate over whether we legislate a policy to extract fetuses prematurely and incubate them with advanced life support.

Dennis, you are wrong. Murder is an illegal act punishable by law. Abortion is legal. Again, the particular point here is not whether abortion is murder in the eyes of anyone in particular.

I am disagreeing with the idea that a law should be made that allow fetuses to be extracted prematurely and put on life support to be incubated to full term. If you notice the only criteria put forth is whether the fetus is still alive. As I understand your point, you are in favor of bringing these fetuses to full term in an artificial medical environment regardless of the state of the infant when it is full term. IMO you and Barry are unwitting servants to your emotions.

What you really want is an end to abortions. But instead you are willing to accept bringing intentionally damaged children into the world as an intermediate step towards that goal.

Both and Barry are only capable to responding to reason with unsubstantiated one liners. I.E. "digging a hole" and desensitizing myself with words to adhere to a viewpoint. Neither of you are worthy of debating because neither are able to address the issues.

What we are talking about is using a medical procedure intended to extract a fetus and kill it in the process. That is abortion and it is legal. You do not "save" a baby by performing this procedure and then putting it on life support. The consequences are unpredictable. One day these disabled children will know what happened to them and the answer will be that you are disabled by law. Spare me the emotional knee jerk response that dead babies never get that opportunity, or that disabled people would rather be a alive than dead.

Dennis and Barry could both Move to a State that has all but outlawed abortion, but they choose to live in a State that has the most abortion clinics in the US. Why? They are not going to change the State into a conservative one.

Both and Barry are only capable to responding to reason with unsubstantiated one liners. I.E. "digging a hole" and desensitizing myself with words to adhere to a viewpoint. Neither of you are worthy of debating because neither are able to address the issues.

Actually, John... If I may be completely honest with you?

You love to hear yourself talk and you're always right, just ask you!

Do not mistake ability with unwillingness to waste time responding to your verbal diarrhea. I truly think you're a misguided, leftest douche-sicle who believes he's mastered answering tough questions with misdirection...

I feel like maybe there needs to be clarity with when a fetus becomes a viable baby. There's a pretty strong argument that once the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, assisted or not, that you are then dealing with more than just a fetus. I'm curious as to the stances regarding this position. Essentially, once the fetus becomes viable outside the womb (because even full term babies require dedicated care by someone) despite the means of how they are continued to keep alive, doesn't that mean that it is a living baby and no longer a fetus?

I don't agree with abortion, but I don't believe that I as a man can dictate these things, so I guess you can call me pro choice. Morally I'm against it, but I don't generally try to push my morals on other people.

I do however believe that there is a certain point where this act ceases to be the termination of an unwanted pregnancy (read: fetus) and becomes the killing of a baby that could potentially survive life outside the womb, handicapped or not.

Medically speaking, if the birth of the baby is going to kill the mother, then the abortion should be done no matter when in the pregnancy, because two (and potentially far far more if the mother is not able to have children who then have children, etc.) lives should not be lost over the idea that abortion is murder.

Sorry if that all seems kind of incoherent. I'm taking a break from editing a video and I'm not sure if the coffee is keeping me awake enough to make sense when I talk or just awake enough to edit...

Wow..Very sad ,and once again Barry points out that the little importance of the respect for an individuals life. Thank god our leaders have made this illegal.Partial birth abortion ban of 2003. It was held up in 2007 April 18 in a 5-4 decision . There are many ways to do partial birth abortions. Popular way by the abortion clinic is to pull the babys legs out of cervix and snip the spinal cord or to use a pair of forcips mack a hole in bottom of skull and attach vacumn and suck out the brains then concave the skull. Basically many of the Md's that perform these can not work in the regular medical field because they suck..

OK Barry lets say the botched abortion started out like this. I will give the benefit to the abortionist in this example from a moral aspect. His intention is to do a partial birth abortion and after the mother has been receiving Pitocin for a few days prior to the extraction in order to dialate the cervix and to do a partial breach the legs buttocks and etc. are out leaving the head in the birthing canal. MD is ready to carve a hole in the spinal area back of the head and has his assistant with the vacumn on ready to suck out the brains and concave the head to pull the dead baby out. This is done because the baby is not fully out and dies while the head is still in the birthing canal. Instead the Md gets a cell phone call or 100 other things happen anyway the head comes out and now we have a premature baby..What should be done then?

Nick's post is the most apropos to the discussion. The right to choose is based on society's collective moral value and the laws that result. Basically there is a need to decide when it is too late to have an abortion. That ranges from not at all up to some point before birth.

If a baby once removed is alive and worth saving, then that same baby is worth saving before removed. IOW, it's too late in the gestation period to be having an abortion because of choice. If it's medical necessity to save the mother but late in the gestation period then the baby should be removed by C section and given medical care. The argument of the baby being aborted because of congenital defect is a separate issue.

IMO if society and law says the fetus can be terminated, it is not an issue of whether it's terminated in the womb or out. It makes no sense to say the fetus can be terminated now, but 5 minutes later when it's out it must be put on life support.

Also there is no definitive point in the pregnancy where anyone can make a rational case as it's ok to terminate today, but not tomorrow. It a subjective decision that must be made if you allow abortion.

Paul, your point seems to be that abortion shouldn't be legal. But that isn't the topic of the video being discussed.

Dennis, Without more specifics I'm guessing that the answer to your question from my perspective is that abortions should not be allowed at that late a stage in the pregnancy. I'm not an expert on this but a quick search revealed the following excerpt from Wikipedia. IMO 6 months (21 - 24 weeks) is plenty of time for a woman to make up her mind. Actually IMO, that is even to much time. And in the absence of other arguments I think that there shouldn't be abortions after that point except for perhaps unusual circumstances.

"The earliest gestational age at which the infant has at least a 50% chance of survival is referred to as the limit of viability. As NICU care has improved over the last 40 years, viability has reduced to approximately 24 weeks,[67][68] although rare survivors have been documented as early as 21 weeks."

I know. These clinics do not know anything else. We are not even debating this procedure . We are talking about a baby who is out of the canal alive. The baby has been born alive. In a partial birth abortion the head is left in and there is no pulse in the brachial pulse under the arm. No pulse and remove the dead baby. Baby died while still in birth canal.

No that is not in the first couple of months. No need of that in the first couple of months. Baby is small then and would be killed with a saline injection to the heart. What i was describing was in the last few months of life. Most likely a 4 to 8 pound baby.

Oh sorry Paul. Your belief probably represents the vast majority of pro-choicers. I am assuming that you mean if a pregnancy is terminated in the first few months of life that it would be ok . Especially under bad circumstances for the parents as it would not be for the child. Do you think that before a abortion that the parents should have real informed choices other then abortion?

Ok lets not call it life then. I assume that is what the vast majority of pro-choicers believe. In the medical field we require informed consent for any procedure and this is usually done after a doctor talks with the patient about risks and benefits of such procedure. We even confirm that such a discussion was done with a patient or the procedure would not be done. I would not expect you to know the answer , but i will ask you anyway. Who does the informed consent for an abortion and what it my include?

My thoughts are along the same line as yours Paul. This isn't about pro or anti abortion in my mind, it is about the lack of regulation that would allow Gosnell to abort babies at 6-8 months for two decades without oversight. Actually, a drug enforcement officer was checking out claims of the mis-use of certain drugs and/or the death of a mother when he stumbled upon the horrors.

I am still amazed that someone could classify an article as tame where 8 month developed "fetuses" are given birth and their spinal cord snipped.

John is right, the video is very tame. No one is stating that the actual act of partial birth abortion is tame, and we all know that it is anything but.

I think you all are arguing with John over something that you generally agree on. That partial birth abortion is wrong. Am I missing something? I get that you disagree with when abortions are okay, but with the topic at hand, you do seem to agree that the act of killing a biologically viable fetus (and by that I mean it can survive outside the womb, assisted or not) should not be okay beyond circumstances that risk the life of the mother and child.

Trying to steer clear of the discussion regarding aborting pregnancies with congenital defects.

John the informed consent is not intended to CYA. It is for the consumer. Education for any procedure should be done in order for the public to have the best choice, otherwise the public would have to rely that a healthcare provider is always giving them the best option.

I agree that the informed choice "should be done in order for the public to have the best choice". But I have some recent experience that indicates it's only a formality and sorely lacking in its alleged intended purpose.

Too late for that Dennis. I hadn't mentioned this before on the forum, but my wife is in her 8th month after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. She's been in home hospice since last august. Hospice provide supplies and I've been staying home from work to take care of her. She had a inoperable tumor in her duodenum that was blocking her digestion. The hospital and doctors were not forthcoming with information about the procedure they wanted to perform and literally revealed no information about the consequences of the surgery or options. Too the point of trivializing the procedure as if it was just run of the mill stuff.

Too much to go into, but informed consent was not what I would call their disclosure. More like pressured consent... I.E. do this or die. They bypassed her duodenum without even mentioning that it would be impossible for her to get adequate nutrition with such a procedure. She's about 88lbs, down from her normal 115 before she got ill, and hasn't been able to gain any weight since then. After the operation some research revealed that she could of had a feeding tube to her jejunum without the operation at all, which was nothing but a butcher job. That way if treatment for the cancer was able to shrink the tumor she could have recovered the normal function of the duodenum.

I did not watch the video nor did I read all the comments but I did want to add my 2 cents. When I was 20 my girl friend at the time got pregnant. She was 18 and we decided we were going to have an abortion. (Im sure Wes will see this and start salivating) At about the 4 month mark my girl friend called me and said she was at the hospital and had a miscarriage. I went to the hospital and was sitting with her when the lab guy walked by. I happened to know him so i got up and started talking with him. I walked to the lab and he asked me if I wanted to see my unborn child. I thought that was odd because until then I really didn't think it was anything because it had only been 4 months since she was pregnant. He took me in the back and showed me my son through a glass jar. I was shaken by what I saw. I could actually tell it was a boy, had hands, fingers, legs toes and arms. When I saw this I realized this is a baby alive in the womb. The thought of aborting the pregnancy now was in my eyes murdering my own child. Although she had the miscarriage and never actually went through with the abortion, my view on the subject even from a non Christian stand point is and always will be that abortion is murder plain and simple.

Too late for that Dennis. I hadn't mentioned this before on the forum, but my wife is in her 8th month after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. She's been in home hospice since last august. Hospice provide supplies and I've been staying home from work to take care of her. She had a inoperable tumor in her duodenum that was blocking her digestion. The hospital and doctors were not forthcoming with information about the procedure they wanted to perform and literally revealed no information about the consequences of the surgery or options. Too the point of trivializing the procedure as if it was just run of the mill stuff.

Too much to go into, but informed consent was not what I would call their disclosure. More like pressured consent... I.E. do this or die. They bypassed her duodenum without even mentioning that it would be impossible for her to get adequate nutrition with such a procedure. She's about 88lbs, down from her normal 115 before she got ill, and hasn't been able to gain any weight since then. After the operation some research revealed that she could of had a feeding tube to her jejunum without the operation at all, which was nothing but a butcher job. That way if treatment for the cancer was able to shrink the tumor she could have recovered the normal function of the duodenum.

John I am so sorry for your family. Yes J-tube feeding was your choice with chemo for a poss. smaller tumor. Makes sense esp. if the both of you feel that way. One size does not fit all. I really wish people would get off their high horse and put themselves in your shoes at least for awhile. I hope you have some good fortunes soon.....